Our social sorting by skin color can be put in more technical terms as aquestion of how much melanin our bodies produce
That is just the science of it. Skin color meant, and still means so much more than just the level of melanin. Skin color determined ones intellect, his biological superiority.
t could have been earwax.
I understand his comparison, but this is a pretty simplistic comparison. Earwax is not visible, it is not what you immidiatly notice when you see a person. The color of his skin is.
In a world that really has been turned on its head, truth is a moment of falsehood.
Curious as to what this means. Juxtaposition?
Apprehended in a partial way, reality unfolds in a new generality as a pseudo-world apart, solely as an object of contemplation.
Is he saying that images are a "separate world" that are analyzed and contemplated?
THE SOCIETY OF THE SPECTACLE
He seems very critical and pessimistic about the modern technological progress and
and the former unity of life is lost forever.
Is it lost or just changed?
Ji°\¡f °ff°Yf£V°}¡|}°V°©°cf°V°¥°f£f°VV\}°}f°{°f ̈°\}f°i°V°¡f°£f°}f°N¡}°<}V°fV2° °V°VY«¡°f °UfY\VfV°V ̈°°\¡f°fVV°Vklf\£f°cdf3°©f °}ff°°f}|°V|\V°f£f°¡fV°VY¡°¥V\}|°}f°kWkm°¡°Y|°cV ̈°°V°\©°°}f°kW°cf°i°}f
I am sure our parents never imagined the possibilities the internet provided us. Maybe technology can in the future do much more than what he is assuming it can do.
&ƛ ƛ ƛƛƛ ƛc ƛIƛ ƛIƛiƛ ƛ ƛJ ƛ ƛ ƛ ƛIƛiƛ ƛƛ ƛƛƛ ƛƛƛ ƛ ƛ ƛ/
So, does according to him whatever we see through the webcam is not a mechanical reproduction? Since we still see it in his original place and time? On the other hand, since the observer can be in a different place, it has elements of a mechanical reproduction.
How is a virtual reality different from the one which for so long we have simply and complacently called 'the Real'?
The brain could be projecting its own reality from behind our eyes.
'these new spaces instantiate the collapse of the boundaries between the social and technological, biology and machine, natural and artificial that are part of the postmodern imaginary.'
This reminds of an annotation I made about paintings/art changing through the invention of cameras and other visual technology. Will VR change perspectives on visual representation such as paintings?
dream-like exaltation
Is he comparing VR with dreaming?
it is the social space of late capitalism which ... constitutes the surface of emergence for cyberspace .... cyberspace is the embodiment or concretization of a logic of control already existent in the power rela-tions that define late capitalism and the modern welfare state.
When i was reading this I had to think about Marx, and is superstructure and base. VR would be indeed an amazing tool to control the people. It is an easy way to maintain the power dynamics in a society. If it is possible to give people a fake, better, and new reality, the masses will be happy. They will not even realize they are being controlled and by the power elite.
It is, after all, only because a completely plausible VR is not yet here, not yet actual, that critics feel moved to speak about its potential for social change,
I wonder if that is even possible. Can VR become so real that it is impossible to differentiate VR with our physical reality?
The intensive press coverage of America's criminals and the extensive supervision of inmates by correctional authorities belie the invisibility of in-mates, parolees, probationers, and others involved in the criminal justice sys-tem to the outside world
Invisible to the outside, hyper visible on the inside
Crime stories make newspaper headlines every day. Several large metropolitan-area newspapers devote whole sections of oth-erwise dwindling daily papers to crime reporting. Jonathan Simon (2007) has persuasively argued that since the declaration of war on crime in the 1960s,
Reporting crime like that will make people believe crime is everywhere, they will rely more on the government to take care of this and keep them safe. Giving the government more power ( think Patriot Act). Is this comparable with the hate sessions in 1984?
The invisibility ofinmates in statistical portraits of the American condition contrasts sharply with their acute visibility in contemporary media portrayals of crime and criminals and under the intensive surveillance by authorities in the criminal justice system itsel
Invisibility versus hyper visibility
In this book, I show how inmates and former inmates are categorically and systematically excluded from the data collection efforts that frame American social policy and social science research.
Making them invisible
his formula made the slave appear a passive recipien
Even though slave being physically freed from being a slave the prior depictions still showed slaves as weak or dependent on their master or whoever freed them. You could say that although they are free they are still forever in debt to whoever freed them. Is that true freedom? The sculpture implies that this freed slave was an independent person who happened to be enslaved. His body language emulates that of someone who can make their own decisions and take initiative. Something that other black characters in other pieces of art lacked.
Ward's Freedman seemed to the critics astonishingly realistic and direct,
The reason why the "Freedman" got considerably more attention than the painting was because it was more realistic and also because it was a sculpture. A black depicted by a sculpture was something new. Of course that is going to draw attention.
t££DOM1 "fQJ.'ffft!. S't.AV�S
Looking at the image, Lincoln holds the slave with left hand and points up with his right arm. Left hand is often associated with arrogance and impoliteness in many asian countries.
as if Lincoln himself were a master personally freeing his own slave
Hidden bias by the artist to show what type of people is more superior than the other. Similar situation happens in the world map. Majority of the printed atlas would have Europe as the center. Tracing histories, Europe was the early world mappers.
reproduced
When it comes to art, after unit 2 readings, this word conveys a very negative connotation to me
But unlike Gray's mythical figure, who accomplished all this simultaneously with two bold strokes of the hand, Lincoln's proclamation merely accelerated a process that had already been set in motion by the slaves themselves.
I remember studying Theory of Knowledge in highschool where we learned that history isnt fact, history is what historians want you to know. How do we know which version of history we should pick?
It isn't surprising that the organizers of the exhibition put it in an inconspicuous corner; they must have been rather nervous about what reaction there would be to such an unprecedented work. 5
Is that nor partly the job of art, to draw a reaction?
While the painting is now lost,
I tried to look it up but could not find it. Is the originally physically lost without a reproduction?
Civil War and its immediate aftermath. The second, perhaps more urgent to us in the early twenty-first century, is why Ward's work ultimately failed to become the great emblem of American liberty that so many critics hoped it would be. As we shall see, the answers to these two questions are linked. For what made the Freedman unconventional and innovative also made it problematic, at a time when the underlying issue of freedom was itself an unresolved dilemma. To account for its power in
Savage asks TWO QUESTIONS, using the RSM of inquiry to focus the topic of his paper, that may have been his original research questions.
Ward's piece eventually lapsed into obscurity.
So, the sculpture had a popular history before it "eventually lapsed into obscurity." Why might this have happened?
he Freedman belonged to a well-established sculptural genre, that of the small-scale statuette purchased for display on a desk or a parlor mantel. Usually these works represented the great white men whose lives embodied the dominant culture's idea of its own moral purpose.
It was rare for a bust/statue of a prominent African-American to be cast (and it still is--the statue of MLK at the MLK Memorial in D.C. is the most recent one). "The Freedman" is likely the first depiction of a non-white person in a sculptural genre/form that honored White people.
Gray's painting was not the only work in the exhibition inspired by the Emancipation Proclamation. In a dimly lit corner of the exhibition rooms, there was a striking plaster statuette, not quite two feet high, by a little known sculptor named John Quincy Adams Ward. This was the Freedman, known to us today by several bronze casts probably produced from the original plaster mode
Here is where the juxtaposition first occurs: and it's really interesting because these TWO works of art that portray the emancipated (or yet to be emancipated, or in the process of being emancipated) slave were excited in the very SAME room...
hat same year at the annual spring exhibition of the National Academy of Design in New York City, a smattering of patriotic art work dealt with this momentous event. New York painter Henry Peters Gray showed his America in 1862, an allegorical image featuring a personification of America breaking the chains of a kneeling slave with one hand and giving the slave a sword with the other hand. While the painting is now lost, accounts in the contemporary press make it clear that the picture was little more than a piece of Union propaganda, cloaked in the elevated language of nineteenth-century academic art
It is clear that Savage mentions THIS painting, "American in 1862," by Henry Peters Gray to juxtapose it with John Quincy Ward's "The Freedman." WHY might he be doing this?
Also: keep in mind what both Berger and Benjamin claimed about the risks and consequences of mechanically produced art becoming used for propagandistic or totalitarian purposes: can that happen with Art that is NOT mechanically reproduced, but merely produced?
THE OTHER WORLD
What exactly is the other world? Is it the other consciousness?
That sky was bluest when I could beat my mates at examination-time, or beat them at a foot-race, or even beat their stringy heads. Alas, with the years all this fine contempt began to fade; for the worlds I longed for, and all their dazzling opportunities, were theirs, not mine.
The division of African American society and the limitations because of their race.
It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others
Double-consciousness fits with my topic of the hypervisiblity/invisibility of whiteness. Dubois says an American Negro has two souls/thoughts because of how they are seen. An American Caucasian does not have double-consciousness about race such as an American Negro does.
As long as the black man is among his own, he will have no occasion, except in minor internal conflicts, to experience his being through others.
Does this statement relate to double-consciousness or the invisibility of the black man?
Consciousness of the body is solely a negating activity. It is a third-person consciousness.
How Fanon feels when he's in the "white world." Overly self-consciousness. In what way are his experience of being a Black man reminiscent of Foucault's ideas about surveillance? What might it mean if one can feel surveilled by a panopticon-like eye when one is NOT in a prison?
Overnight the Negro has been given two frames of reference within which he has had to place himself
In what way is this like DuBois's double-consciousness? In what way is like how Ellison's "Invisible Man" experiences his identity, his hyper visibility--invisibility in society?
For not only must the black man be black; he must be black in relation to the white man
This reminds me of some of Garrett's ideas for his research essay focus.....what does everyone think about this juxtaposition (yes, Fanon is using the RSM of juxtaposition to talk about the juxtaposition of black and white in western society)
myself, after existing some twenty years, did not become alive until I discovered my invisibility.
This leads me to question what are the effects of recognizing your own visibility? What differs in the effects of recognizing hypervisibility vs. invisibility?
My indefinite status was therefore a subject of speculation and a source of unease, especially among those whose attitudes and modes of conduct were at odds with the dictates of law and order. This made for a nodding relationship in which my neighbors kept their distance and I kept mine.
He is made invisible by his neighbors due to his job status. Job, race, status, many components of life is used to alienate people making them invisible.
For while I had conceived of it in terms of a black-white, majority-minority conflict,
Hyper-visible versus invisible
daily journeys from a Negro neighborhood, wherein strangers questioned my moral character on nothing more substantial than our common color and my vague deviation from accepted norms, to find sanctuary in a predominantly white environment wherein that same color and vagueness of role rendered me anonymous, and hence beyond public concern. In retrospect it was as though writing about invisibility had rendered me either transparent or opaque and set me bouncing back
Where he stands out because of his color he becomes invisible. Because people ignore him. Where he stands out because he has a different occupation he is hyper-visible. This seems contradiction.
But basically it was because I fitted none of the roles, legal or illegal, with which my neighbors were familiar.
This will make you hyper-visible anywhere
There were, however, important differences, some of which worked wonders for my shaky se�f-confidence and served, perhaps, as a catalyst for the wild mtxture of elements that went into the evolving fiction.
Working wonders, when people don't wonder what he is doing in that apartment building. Has has stopped being hyper-visible and basically invisible. Almost like he blends in. I wonder if he really blends in or is just not noticed?
re of their situation and discuss their interests, says Brecht following Piscator. It is, claims Artaud, the pu
The opposite of Foucault and his panoptican
and a time, .as the body in action as opposed to a mere apparatus oflaws; a set of perceptions, gestures and attitudes that precede and pre-form laws and political institutions. More than any other art, theatre has been associated with the Romantic idea of an aesthetic revolution, changing not the mechanics of the state and laws, but the sensible forms of human experience. Hence reform of theatre meant the. restoration of its charac
A fact that makes theater a very powerful medium
conclusion by bodies in motion in front of living bodies that are to be mobilized: .The latter might have relinquished their power. But this power
Here the spectator becomes an active person
bile in her seat, passive. To be a spectator is to be sepai rated from both the capacity t
I never thought that going to a theater would make me a passive spectator. But now that I think about it, there is little interaction between the actor and observer. This depends on how seeing is considered, is seeing an passive or active act?
whatis to be done,as long as the performance draws them out of their passive attitude and transforms them into . active participants in a shared world, Such.isthe firstconvictionthattheattical
RESUME READING HERE
It is an important mechanism, for it automatizes and disindividualizes power
The mechanism is ideal at isolating prisoners to prevent them from coming together to form power. The mechanism is automated in that it doesn't require a guard to always be watching, the prisoner never knows if someone is watching.
asses that were to
The panopticon shows the weaknesses of the ability to see. Visibility can be manipulated to create a trap. In this case it keeping the prisoners isolated from each other.
his surveillance is based on a system of permanent registration:
This made me think of the Patriot Act (not the movie). How much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to be safe. Actually the question is; how far are we allowing the government to infringe in our freedom before we say, "no more?" In our time, terrorism, fear of terrorist attacks have the same qualities of the plague. It is used for the same reason.
So it is not necessary to use force to constrain the convict to good behaviour, the madman to calm, the worker to work, the schoolboy to application, the patient to the observation of the regulations
In sociology this is called hegemony (“predominance by consent”). It is hard to rule by force. Ruling without force, by consent for instance is much easier.
is no danger of contagion; if they are madmen there is no risk of their committing violence upon one another; if they are schoolchildren, there is no copying, no noise, no chatter, no waste of time; if they are workers, there are no disorders, no theft, no coalitions, none of those distractions that slow down the rate of work, make it less perfect or cause accidents. The crowd, a compact mass, a locus of multiple exchanges, individualities merging together, a collective effect, is abolished and replaced by a collection of separated individualities.
Divide and conquer.
architecture and geometry,
architecture + geometry + seeing?
he more numerous those anonymous and temporary observers are, the greater the risk for the inmate of being surprised and the greater his anxious awareness of being observed. The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power. A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation. So it is
"A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation": what does this mean?
The Panopticon is a machine for dissociating the see/being seen dyad: in the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, wjthout ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen
What effect/s does/do the Panopticon have on the way that we (the observed/the surveilled) ourselves see/can see?
� surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnece
The victim of panopticism believes that they are always being watched, but they can't see whose watching them...
things
So: divide and conquer?
r the future, bad reciprocal influences; if they are patients, the
How is "invisibility" a guarantee of "order"? (Keep invisibility in mind for Unit 3)
mpanions. He is seen, but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject in communication. The arrangement of his room, opposite the central tower, imposes on him an axia
Does the panopticon prison structure both surveil & quarantine in keeping the prisoners from interacting with each other? What could they possibly "catch" from each other?
ake it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of
How can a structure be both like a CAGE and a THEATER? Can you think of other structures that are like this? This seems like a weird extension of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" that adds "surveillance" to the allegory: are the prisoner's being watched/surveilled by the people who make their shadow reality?
e shadows in the cells of the periphery. They are like so many c
Those who were surveilled by panopticon-like structures
r, standing
supervisor = super + visor = super (above, superior) + visor (one who looks)
his is what was operated regularly by disciplinary power from the beginning of the nineteenth century in the psychiatric asylum, the penitentiary, the reformatory, the approved school and, to some extent, the hospital.
Institutions that started to regularly exercise disciplinary power starting in the early 19th century: hospitals, asylums, penitentiaries, schools, hospitals, etc.
he leper and his separation; the plague and its segmentations.
Foucault is contrasting the segregation-expulsion of lepers and the segmentation, regulation, and discipline of societies affected by the plague.
irregularities
regularity-irregularity-regulations
surveillance
If we are to use Foucault's example, surveillance in the 17th century was connected to quarantine during the plague, so it is interesting how systems of surveillance became equated with discipline (surveillance being a disciplinary regime of power) that migrated to other aspects of life, i.e. education, work, shopping, sartorial display, gender role normatively, identity creation-management, and other "behaviors" that are observed and subject to regulation...
visibility; but the divisions of the ring, those separated cells, imply a lateral invisibility. And this in
This explains current information exchange across multiple social media platform. There will always be the authority that sees and has access to almost everything without being in the communication between individuals.
The plague-stricken town, traversed throughout with hierarchy, surveillance, observation, writing; the town immobilized by the functioning of an extensive power that bears in a distinct way over all individual bodies -this is the utopia of the perfectly governed cit
perfectly governed city to whose perspective? Most likely government because they want a city to operates as they want it to. However, would the people be happy under this intense surveillance and power penetrated to their life?
respondsbypoliticizingart.Notes1
You can see that Benjamin has a lot of footnotes (a total of 21 footnotes) to show his research & that add support to his argument!
Inphotography,exhibitionvalue beginstodisplace cultvalue allalongthe line.
An example of the views of art changing over time. The information behind art is being valued instead of being seen as a ceremonial object.
Thistraditionitself isthoroughlyalive andextremelychangeable
The perspective on art is always changing over time.
VII
Photography and film are being questioned if they are considered an art form. Quotes are given supporting that film is an art.
I
Art has always been able to be reproduced in some way. With lithography and eventually photography, the rate of reproducing art has accelerated extremely and has become common.
mechanicalreproductionemancipatesthe workof artfrom itsparasiticaldependence onritual
mechanical reproduction frees art from being stuck in one place. art in this age is designed to be reproduced.
The situationsintowhichthe productof mechanicalreproductioncanbebroughtmaynottouchthe actualworkof art,yetthe qualityof itspresence isalwaysdepreciated.
A reproduction of art can be an exact replica of the original but can never match its authenticity. the question is does authenticity always matter?
WALTER BENJAMIN
IV
When a piece of art is mechanically reproduced, the is separated with its tradition, aura, original use value and its cult. It also creates a situation where art is no longer dependent on its ritual function. Because of this art just becomes art with no other function. Originals are no longer important, reproductions are and can now be used for other means.
X
When filming an actor, reproducing his personality, his fake personality is reproduced and not who he really is. Whoever he is when filmed has to be attractive to the people watching. Just like a commodity. When watching, sport, or anything else on TV, people can claim to be experts. Everybody can become an artist, writer, actor, lessing the gap between artist and observer.
XIII
Films allows a deeper analysis of what we see, trough close ups, freeze frames, slow motions. It allows us to see more, but also to deeper analyses our own actions. The camera opens our eyes for things that would normally remain unnoticed.
XIV
Arts was created on demand, dada created a situation where the message of art was more important than the value. Dada created art for the public, to shock the public.
XV
Art, film can create two situations, it can distract, where the work of art is absorbed by the masses, or it can concentrate where the observer is absorbed by the work of art. Buildings have a purpose of shelter, so architectural art will remain
Withlithographythe technique of reproductionreachedanessentiallynewstage
the beginning of mass production of art, the beginning of the end for Berger.
Withthe woodcutgraphic artbecame mechanicallyreproduciblefor the firsttime,longbefore scriptbecame reproducible byprint
The reproduction of art is older than the reproduction of texts.
bythirdpartiesinthe pursuitof gain.
This is the problem Berger is concerned about, that art will be used for political, personal, or financial profits.
Our eyes, spinning like propellers, take off into the future on the wings of hypothesis.
what does 'hypothesis' really mean here?
The machine makes us ashamed of man's inability to control himself, but what are we to do if electricity's unerring ways are more exciting to us than the disorderly haste of active men and the corrupting inertia of passive ones?
They are saying that the shadow in the cave from Plato's allegory is more pleasing
In an art of movement we have no reason to devote our particular attention to contemporary man.
Stop using art for other ends that that it was intended for.
WE proclaim the old films, based on the romance, theatrical films and the like, to be leprous. -Keep away from them! -Keep your eyes off them! -They're mortally dangerous! -Contagious!
Not the daily reality
To the American adventure film with its showy dynamism and to the dramatizations of the American Pinkertons the kinoks say thanks for the rapid shot changes and the close-ups. Good ... but disorderly, not based on a precise study of movement. A cut above the psychological drama, but still lacking in foundation. A cliche. A copy of a copy.
I think this is exactly what Berger has a problem with, A copy not based on the reality, something Virtov is trying to create
kinoks, ("cinema-eye men"). A neologism coined by Vertov, involving a play on the words kino ("cinema" or "film") and oko, the latter an obsolescent and poetic word meaning "eye." The -ok ending is the transliteration of a traditional suffix used in Russian to indicate a male, human agent.
It is interesting to see how he indeed in his movie uses that camera point of view as a separate identity. Because he actually films his cameraman, he transforms the camera into an eye that is watching how things are filmed. It adds a layer to what filming is able to do, it allows people to see the past, and actions in different places. It brings time and place together to be seen at a different location and at a different time. Something I think is a very powerful attribute. The connection with Berger is interesting since Virtov wants us to show a reproduction of a typical Russian day without any factors that could influence the viewer.
y refu · . . . . smg to Gs enter a conspiracy, one remams mnocent f h 0 t at conspiracy. But to remain innocent may also be . . Th . . to remam ignorant.
Is Berger claiming that the approach to art should be viewed in different ways based off of experience rather than its original intention?
The bogus religiosity which now surrounds original 4s works of art, and which is ultimately dependent upon their market value, has become the substitute for what paintings lost when the camera made them reproducible
Interesting how perspectives change on art throughout time periods and inventions. I'm curious on what will change perspectives on art in the future?
he art of the past no longer exists as it once did. 7o Its authority is lost. In its place there is a language of images. What matters now is who uses that language for what purpose. This touches upon questions of copyright for reproduction, the ownership of art presses and publishers, the total policy of public art galleries and museums. As usually presented, these are narrow professional matters. One of the aims of this essay has been to show that what is really at stake is much larger. A people or a class which is cut off from its own past is far less free to choose and to act as a people or class than one that has been able to situate itself in history. This is why-and this is the only reason why-the entire art of the past has now become a political issue
Berger's conclusion returns to his Motive: what the stakes are, why his argument matters, and why we should care about what he has to say about SEEING, Art, and the mechanical reproduction of images.
What are we saying by that? Let us first be sure about what we are not saying.
Berger makes a classic They Say, I Say rhetorical move that DIFFERENTIATES what he's saying from what other say and also from assumptions an audience might have or from people who might want to twist his words, or simply misinterpret him. What Berger is doing here is limiting, or qualifying his argument. Doing so not only provides clarification, but also makes his argument more complex and his stance stronger.
t you saw depended upon where you were when. What you saw was relative to your position in time and spac
What might this say about the difference between painting and photography?
The art of the past no longer exists as it once did. 7o Its authority is lost. In its place there is a language of images.
I disagree with that statement. I don't think the art of the past is lost. It requires more effort to discover, but it is not lost. The reason why it might become lost is because people do not take the time to go to a museum, see the original and take time to look at the painting in a setting the painter intended the painting to be watched. It speaks volumes about, us, the modern people.
The uniqueness of every 3s painting was once part of the uniqueness of the place where it resided. Sometimes the painting was transportable. But it could never be seen in two places at the same time. When the camera reproduces a painting, it destroys the uniqueness of its image. As a result its meaning changes. Or, more exactly, its meaning multiplies and fragments into many meanings.
I agree, that indeed the meaning of a painting can change depending on the context you put it it. When seen in a different setting the meaning can change. But I see this as a good thing, a painting should be able to express different meanings for different people. That does not mean that the original meaning should be forgotten. But it seems a bit selfish that a painting should only be allowed one interpretation. It think it adds to the power and beauty of art, to have multiple meanings in different circumstances.
SEEING COMES BEFORE WORDS. THE CHILD LOOKS and recognizes before it can speak
Supporting the Claims of Plato and Descartes. That seeing is our most important sense.
The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe.
Indeed, but I do not believe this only happens in a one-way direction. yes, the way we see is affected by what we know and believe. But we gained that knowledge by what we saw. So what we believe and know is affected by the way we see.
The meaning of an image is changed according to what one sees immediately beside it or what comes immediately after it
This reminds me of something I studied in Theory of Knowledge class while I was in high school. The meaning of art can be articulated from at least three ways: 1) from our own interpretation 2) from what the maker authoritatively dictates us to know what the art means (I don't like this one because it breaks the freedom when we see art) 3) From public's interpretation.
We never look at just one thing; we are always looking at the relation between things and ourselves
There is something in Design called the perception effect (if im not mistaken) which states the exact same thing. We see objects collectively instead of its individually. And the order, the mapping of this collective objects affect the way we understand their functions.
er than what he was being shown?' 'Yes,' he agreed. 'And imagine him being dragged forcibly away from t
Pretty much stating what others have said. It's important to accept new truths as they are and not to run back to what was once familiar.
the seasons and the yearly cycle, that the whole of the visible realm 4. The stage of looking at reflections and so on outside the cave does not
Once he is exposed to the truth, he wants to find out more. Making him less complacent because he seeks the truth. I believe that is an important trait everyone should have. We should want to seek the truth and not just always accept what we are told.
ngs he could make out, and would take the truth of the matter to be that these things are clea
What i got out of this was that firelight is meant to symbolize the truth or what is actually going on and shadows are meant to symbolize deception or not the whole truth. It is easier to look at shadows than it is to look at fire. Sometimes it is easier to look at deception rather than learning the truth about a scandal. Learning the truth about a scandal can make you turn away the same way trying to look at firelight can.
jects which were being carried along? Won't they only see thei
To me this depicts an image of people being attached, addicted to something that doesn't reflect truth because all they see is a shadow, which is an interpretation that includes bias. Its not the real image from the real, outside world.
the passers-by spoke, don't you t
They are not able to think otherwise because they have not seen anything else, except for shadows. I think the curiosity urge to discover of humans is somewhat underestimated here. It is not because we have not seen anything else, that our imagination is not working.
st by the fire on to the cave wall directly opposite them? 'Of course not,' he said. 'They're forced to spendtheir lives without moving their heads.' 'And what about the objects which were being carried along? Won't they only see the
We see only what we are allowed to see. In order to see the real truth one needs to be able to look around and see things from another perspective. Hmm this totally sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy documentary. " The government has the truth about aliens and the creation of the universe. But it is holding us with our head faced to the wall, just like Plato's cave people. They are keeping is uninformed."
s cell down under the ground; at the far end of the cave, a long way off, there's an entrance open to the outside wo
The whole analogy is about the connection between seeing and learning. We learn our reality based on what we see. But it is not because we can see it, that it is automatically reality. It just means whatever we see determines what we think is OUR reality.
encomium to vision
this means "PRAISE" of vision
We should consider that are many other things besides pictures which can stimulate our thought
He is saying that we should understand that we often forget that there is more that provokes our thoughts than just images. For example when we read a sentence we literally see a bunch of symbols that are grouped in different ways. But those symbols represent ideas that our brains can interpret through our ability to see and read.
The grip of modern ocularcentrism was perhaps nowhere as evident as in France, the culture whose recent reversal of attitudes is thus perhaps all the more worthy of study.
This sentence offers a transition between Unit I and Unit II--in that there will be a "reversal of attitudes" about ocularcentrism
In addition to a certain waffling about what the master sense of the early modern era actually was-hearing or touc
Im so fascinated by the culture that used to value the sense of touch and hearing. We are way too dominated by our sight and do not take the time to truly see the evidence. I love that old societies valued touch so much. It seems as if those societies were full of discoverers and explorers. People who dared to push past the social norms. I wish our society was still like that
Is actual sight to be distrusted and mental representations considered the only true reality of which we have indubi-table, because specular knowledge?1
Is this in agreement with occularcentricism? Our eyes can observe but can they analyze?
We should, however, recall that our mind can be stimulated by many things other than images -by signs and words, for example, which in no way resemble the things they signify
Does this qualification make Descartes less ocularcentric? Does this show that he still has some agreement with Aristotle in that hearing is also important for knowledge acquisition?
rays
basically, light/light rays bend, bounce, refract, can be reflected when they encounter solid matter.
Nor will you find it strange that by means of this action we can see all sorts of colours. You may perhaps even be prepared to believe that in the bodies we call 'coloured' the colours are nothing other than the various ways in which the bodies receive light and reflect it against our eyes.
Rahmat, you were writing about color in one of your ACE paragraphs, right? You might be able to make connections to Descartes to write an ACE Synthesis Paragraph...
And since the construction of the things of which I shall speak must depend on the skill of craftsmen, who usually have little formal education, I shall try to make myself intelligible to everyone; and I shall try not to omit anything, or to assume anything that requires knowledge of other sciences.
Descartes identifies that he is writing for a more general audience that includes what he refers to as "craftsman"--for people who do not have a lot of formal education. He's not only writing for other philosophers or scientists.
T HE co No u c T o F o u R LIFE depends entirely on our senses, and since sight is the noblest and most comprehensive of the senses, inventions which serve to increase its power are undoubtedly among the most useful there can be
I interpret this claim from an empirical point of view. We should conduct our life based on what can be seen, heard, or touched. According to Descartes, sight is the most important contributor to our empirical world. Inventions like the telescope were used to make sense out of things that were until then unexplained. Making these invisible objects visible, made then part of our scientific world. This knowledge rendered other, non-visible, non- ocularcentric explanations invalid.
We know for certain that it is the soul which has sensory awareness, and not the body.
I have never thought about sensory awareness like this. An example I think of is day-dreaming. We become so deep in thought that our hearing and vision "turn off" temporarily. Then we snap back into reality and that has nothing to do with our bodies but our minds.
You have only to consider that the differences a blind man notices between trees, rocks, water and similar things by means of his stick do not seem any less to him than the differences between red, yellow, green and all the other colours seem to us.
I really like this comparison between touch and vision. The senses are each unique but with the absence of one sense another sense picks up the role. Vision does not only have to come from the eyes but there are other ways such as the blind mans stick.
in the event of your refusal, that an injunction should be imposed upon you by theCommissary of the Holy Office to give up the said doctrine and not to teach it to others, not to defend it, nor even to discuss it; andyour failing your acquiescence in this injunction, that you should be imprisoned
This shows that what was taught was considered the truth with no questions asked. Threatening to imprison someone for simply teaching another view shows the inability or the refusal to acknowledge another viewpoint.
for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to yourface declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave itundecided, and in express terms as probably: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probablewhich has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture
are they saying his observations and scientific discoveries were sacrilegious, or that the way on which he present the evidence is sacrilegious?
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically andformally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, isequally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
I think this proves that vision takes over our thought before we truly have time to analyze. Just like an illusion, our eyes can deceive and manipulate us. We need to think before we see, or see at a level that is critical, and realistic, not imaginable and unforeseeable.
verbally nor in writing;
He was allowed to teach it trough hearing (verbally) and trough vision (writing). An interesting fact especially considering that the church was not ocularcentric and science was.
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically andformally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, isequally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
Both are claims that are based upon what was believed, and not on what has been seen. I believe this is evidence of how important vision is. Something that was held as truth, could be disproved by just using our vision.
First, vision is jusr as likely to lead to a frozen and static appropriation of the world as touch
I may not be understanding this correctly, but how how is to vision just as likely? would it not be way less?
With this being said, vision is being questioned. Plato expressed "we see through our eyes, not with them." Plato distrusted sense perception. This claim that vision could not be trusted caused heavy questioning of the history of Greek culture and their beliefs.
nd the Argus,
So this is where the word "Argus-eyed" comes from. It is a word that is commonly used in Dutch. (Keeping a close eye at someone, or something).
This dual concept of light nicely complemented the dual concept of visiob, even if they weren't perfectly congruent. What might be called the I alterhating traditions of speculation with the eye of the mind and observa-tion with the two eyes of the body provided fertile ground for the varieties of ocularcentrisrii that have so deeply penetrated culture
According to this claim, the Western world had no other choice than to become ocularcentric. Both sides to the argument support ocularcentrism. Sure, it is an opposing variety of this phenomenon, but it is still ocularcentrism.
The Noblest of the Senses
Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim that the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.
mple warrant for this generalizatio.!l in Greek religion, and philosophy.
In this sentence he outlines several subcategories of Greek culture/society that he will then give specific examples from in this paragraph to support this viewpoint. The rest of this paragraph includes those examples as evidence (linguistic evidence, images of Greek gods---who could appear to humans, theater, their penchant for geometry in mathematics, the Greek idealization of the nude body, and the Greek citizens role as "spectator" at various events (olympics, theater, etc.)
Although there have been dissenting voices-William Ivins's was the most persistent6-it is generally agreed that classi-cal Greece privileged sight over the other senses,
Jay points out that there is a prevailing belief among critics that the Greeks regarded sight as more important than the other senses...
Would Jay say that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric? What doyousay? (Try using templates from G&B’s introduction or chapters 12 o2 1 to frame yourideas / claimsabout Jay and the Ancient Greeks). [2] In what ways does Jay complicate our understandingof the ocularcentrism of the Ancient Greeks?
Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.
The Noblest of the Senses:
Jay, indeed claims that the Ancient Greeks were ocularcentric, and I agree with that statement. There are many instances throughout the text that support this claim. In his first paragraph, Jay states that “it is generally agreed that classical Greece privileged sight over the other senses.” To support this statement, he mentions: “Greek art, religion, philosophy, even linguistic evidence.” And if this was not support enough, Jay also mentions Plato’s writing, and how import sight was for this classical Greek philosopher. Even though, at the end he challenges the claim the Greeks were ocularcentric. He claims that “Hellenic thought did not on the whole privileged the visual over any other senses.” He also provides evidence for this ‘claim-challenge’. His proof ranged from the dual conception of light and vision, and the difference between “the perfect and pure sight of the eye of the mind” and the impure experience of actual sight of the two eyes. Nevertheless, even with these challenging concepts, vision was the noblest sense according to the ancient Greeks.
the visual organ proper is composed of water, yet vision appertains to it not because itis so composed, but because it is translucent- a property common alike to water and to air
Aristotle's claim about the composition of the eye...
Of the two last mentioned, seeing, regarded as a supply for the primary wants of life, and in itsdirect effects, is the superior sense; but for developing intelligence, and in its indirectconsequences, hearing takes the precedence
What is Aristotle trying to say hear? How can both seeing and hearing be superior?
The primacy of seeing vs. hearing depends on the CONTEXT or SITUATION. However, you might note that Aristotle does state that seeing "is the superior sense" but that "hearing takes precedence" for "developing intelligence." This is a departure from Plato, yes?
he visual organ proper really were fire, which is the doctrine of Empedocles, a doctrine taughtalso in the Timaeus, and if vision were the result of light issuing from the eye as from a lantern,why should the eye not have had the power of seeing even in the dark
Aristotle disagrees with Plato here...about the eye being composed of fire...
But in animals which havealso intelligence they serve for the attainment of a higher perfection
Aristotle claims that the senses of smell, hearing, seeing are connected to intelligence and higher orders of animals...
however, it is hearing that contributes most to thegrowth of intelligence.
How does he initially emphasize that visual sight is this grand sense but then ultimately decides that hearing is a sense that grows our intelligence. Does bison serve as a distraction while hearing draws our attention?
That without light vision is impossible has been stated elsewhere; but, whether the mediumbetween the eye and its objects is air or light, vision is caused by a process through this medium
Interesting point! Vision, seeing, and the eye are so instrumental to our lives. But they become useless when there is no light. People can still feel, hear, or taste in the dark.
Connection in the next sentence between Seeing and Learning/Knowing/Knowledge
mirror
Mirrors would have been an early form of visual technology
longer
So we are diurnal because we are primarily "seeing" beings?
re,which is called the head, and is the god and lord of
By comparing our organ to god Plato is implying that that the brain is the most prominent organ of them all. The brain is commands every other part of the body the same way a god or lord commands their people.
if our eyes had neverseen the sun, stars, and heavens, the words which we have spoken would not have been uttere
i find the idea that vision is so superior to the other senses fascinating. According to Plato, our response to seeing the heavens would have essentially eliminated the need to speak, muting our words in a sense of awe and wonder
ate. God gave us the faculty of sight that we might behold the order of the heavens and create a corresponding order in our own erring m
God, give men eyes to make sense out of things they could not understand. So we would be able to look at the example (order of the heavens) and reproduce it. That is a pretty strong supporting statement of ocularcentrism.
They first contrived the eye
So according to Plato, sight was the first sense that was created. While in reality it is the last sense that is developed in an unborn baby
When the light of the eye is surrounded by the light of day, then like falls upon like, and they unite and form one body which conveys to the soul the motions of visible objects. But when the visual ray goes forth into the darkness, then unlike falls upon unlike—the eye no longer sees, and we go to slee
These sentences sound like wave superposition in Physics; constructive and destructive interference. Interesting how people at this age had the ability to imagine such thing.
Sight is the source of the greatest benefits to us; for if our eyes had neverseen the sun, stars, and heavens, the words which we have spoken would not have been uttere
Sentences supporting ocularcentrism, emphasizing the significance of eyes as a part of human body. If human beings were crafted without eyes, would we, through evolution, develop another way to perceive our surrounding?
one of the most extraordinary aspects of vision, most broadly conceived, is the experience of being the o� Here the range of possibilities is • exceptionally wide, extending from the paranoid's fantasy of being under constant hostile surveillance to the exhibitionist's narcissistic thrill at being the cynosure of all eyes
Being the "object" of the "look"--the one looked at, appraised, viewed--whether one wants to be looked at or not. Of course, there is also the phenomenon of refusing or failing to see the "object" of the look....color blindness is one example of this. So, keep this in mind for Unit 3!
Unlike the other senses of smell, touch, or taste, there seems to be a close, if complicated, relationship between �·ifili.1::i and\fanguag<;, both of which come into their own at approximately the same moment of maturation
The relationship between sight & language--what we call reading. I wonder what these researchers might say about hearing and language for the blind, or sight and universal sign language for the deaf--i.e. the language is the same, regardless of what language one speaks.
inevitable entanglement of vision and what has been called "visuality"-the distinct historical manifestations of visual experience in all its possible modes.25 Observation, to put it another way, means observing the tacit cultural rules of different scopic regimes.
What is a scope regime? A keyterm for Unit 2, but it might be interesting to note it for now.
the boundary between the "natural" and the "cultural" component in what we call vision
This is an important distinction: what is "natural" about vision vs. what is "cultural" about vision. To what degree is how we see rooted in nature or biology or chemistry, etc. vs. to what degree is how we see rooted in cultural practices or rituals or beliefs (including prejudices, social and gender norms, etc. think of something like beauty vs. ugliness--sorry Medusa).
f the eye's powers are appreciated by science, so too are its limitations
This sentence introduces a major transition in Jay's focus from benefits (i.e. the power) of seeing to the "limitations" of seeing/sight.
As a diurnal animal standing on its hind legs, the early human beiag developed its sensorium in such a way as to give sight an ability to differentiate and assimilate most external stimuli in a way superior to the other four senses.
Then is this to say that humans become ocularcentric partly as a result of evolution?
blind spot
And, of course, blind spots can also be metaphorical...
"The ability to visualize something internally is closely linked with the ability to describe it verbally. Verbal and written descriptions create highly specific mental images .... The link between vision, visual memory, and verbalization can be quite startling. "2
I have noticed that I think, react and see the world around me differently depending what language I use. When I am in my native mindset, I think, speak, hear and experience the world around me in the Dutch language. This is totally different when I am in my English mindset. I think it is all about what is available in that specific language to describe certain objects, or events.
Having some eighteen times more nerve endings than the cochlear nerve of the ear, its nearest competitor, the optic nerve with its 800,000 fibers
Clearly, the eye and seeing is not only important culturally and socially. Also biologically it seems to be the best developed sense.
Human vision can see light waves that are only a fraction of the total spectrum-in fact, less than 1 percent with such phenomena as ultraviolet light, visible to other species, excluded.
Indeed, our eyes can't see the wave outside the visible spectrum, but some devices can. Should seeing through something that is not a part of our body (not directly connected to our nerves and brain) present equivalent degree of 'believing'?
�ular��!.�
Jay's major keyterm in this reading!